A Framework for Characterizing Knowledge Management Methods, Practices, and Technologies Brian D. Newman Kurt W. Conrad The Knowledge Management Forum The Sagebrush Group W. Richland, WA 99353 Santa Clara, Ca Bo.Newman@km-forum.org conrad@sagebrushgroup.com disciplines. Likewise, as individuals encounter particular phenomena, they tend to describe and Abstract interpret them in different ways [Kuh96]. Knowledge management is not one The following working definition of knowledge single discipline. Rather, it an management frames the discussion: knowledge integration of numerous endeavors and management is a discipline that seeks to improve the fields of study. This paper provides a performance of individuals and organizations by framework for characterizing the maintaining and leveraging the present and future various tools (methods, practices and value of knowledge assets. Knowledge management technologies) available to knowledge systems encompass both human and automated management practitioners. It provides a high-level overview of a number of activities and their associated artifacts. key terms and concepts, describes the framework, provides examples of how From this perspective, knowledge management is not to use it, and explores a variety of so much a new practice as it is an integrating practice. potential application areas. It offers a framework for balancing the myriad of technologies and approaches that provide value, tying 1 Introduction them together into a seamless whole. It helps analysts and designers better address the interests of Over the past several years, a number of authors have stakeholders across interrelated knowledge flows and, proposed a variety of approaches for classifying the by doing so, better enables individuals, systems and tools (methods, practices and technologies) that organizations to exhibit truly intelligent behavior in typically comprise knowledge management systems. multiple contexts. This is not the first attempt to develop a framework for organizing and understanding knowledge The classification framework presented in this paper management tools. And, given the emerging practices can be used in several ways: and changing understanding of knowledge management, it will not be the last. ƒ to organize and classify knowledge management methods, practices and technologies by relating As with any discipline that lacks a recognized them to distinct phases of the targeted knowledge unifying paradigm, various views will emerge, each flows based on what can be readily observed or what can be ƒ to examine knowledge flows to understand the applied from practices associated with other interactions and dependencies among pieces of information, communicators and their associated The copyright of this paper belongs to the paper’s authors. Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not behaviors. made or distributed for direct commercial advantage. Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Practical Aspects of This paper is organized into two sections. The first Knowledge Management (PAKM2000) defines key terms and concepts. The second describes Basel, Switzerland, 30-31 Oct. 2000, (U. Reimer, ed.) the knowledge management framework, its uses and http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-34/ its benefits. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-1 2 Key Terms and Concepts 2.1.3 Knowledge Transfer. The characterization framework described in this This refers to activities associated with the flow of paper is based on and integrates a number of knowledge from one party to another. This includes conceptual models and frameworks. This section communication, translation, conversion, filtering and introduces those and their related terminology. rendering. 2.1 Knowledge Flows and their Associated 2.1.4 Knowledge Utilization. Activity Areas This includes the activities and events connected with There are those who believe that it is impossible to the application of knowledge to business processes. truly manage knowledge, only behaviors. When 2.1.5 Mapping Knowledge Flows to Activity Areas individuals examine business processes, events and activities, they also tend to use a behavioral focus as The GKM sequences these activity areas in a rather the organizing framework. Accordingly, most people deterministic fashion. In reality, though, all but the find that behaviors are the most comfortable frame of most rigorously automated knowledge flows comprise reference for understanding the relationships between complex systems that are built mostly from business processes and knowledge flows. asynchronous processes. The GKM is valuable precisely because it relates the myriad of individual, highly dynamic behaviors and processes to general Knowledge flows comprise the set of processes, events and activities through which data, information, activity areas and, by association, to each other. knowledge and meta-knowledge are transformed from Various theories of learning, problem solving, and one state to another. To simplify the analysis of cognition may imply specific activity patterns, but they knowledge flows, the framework described in this are usually not required to organize the key paper is based primarily on the General Knowledge relationships and dependencies among the activity Model. The model organizes knowledge flows into areas. The model allows analysts to trace individual four primary activity areas: knowledge creation, knowledge flows by helping them to examine and retention, transfer and utilization (Figure 1). understand how knowledge enables specific actions and decisions.  The GKM is recursive in nature. Within each activity phase exists other, smaller knowledge flows and cycles. These layers span a wide range of macro- and micro-behaviors. They range from very broad    organizational and multi-organizational processes to very discrete actions and decisions and include all of the various intervening behavioral layers: activities, tasks, workflows, systems, interfaces, transforms, etc.  2.2 Knowledge Artifacts  Artifacts come in a variety of forms, including documents, files, papers, conversations, pictures, Figure 1. The General Knowledge Model thoughts, software, databases, e-mail messages, data sets, winks and nods, and whatever else can be used to 2.1.1 Knowledge Creation. represent meaning and understanding. Said another way: knowledge artifacts flow among and form the This comprises activities associated with the entry of linkages between the activities and events that new knowledge into the system, and includes comprise knowledge flows. knowledge development, discovery and capture. Most people’s involvement with a knowledge stream 2.1.2 Knowledge Retention. is through various artifacts. Artifacts are what we deal This includes all activities that preserve knowledge with every day. We write reports, send e-mail, read and allow it to remain in the system once introduced. books, remember bits and pieces of old thoughts, It also includes those activities that maintain the engage in conversations and follow procedures. viability of knowledge within the system. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-2 The term knowledge artifact does not specify the form meaning of the words from their position (on the cover of the artifact (e.g. information, transformation, of a book), formatting (big, bold and centered) and metadata or meta-knowledge) but it is very specific as content (lacking formal subject and predicate). to the process that gave rise to the artifact. This makes the term valuable for explaining such things as the The potential for ambiguity is one of the importance of knowledge artifact retention, characteristics of implied knowledge artifacts. Most establishing provenance and enabling reusability. readers of the sentence, “Ann put on her heavy coat and locked up her classroom,” implicitly understand Knowledge artifacts differ from one another in several that it is winter and Ann is a teacher, but there are ways: their form of codification, the way in which they other inferences that could be made as well. For are rendered, their degree of abstraction and their consistent interpretation, both the person making the 1 ability to enable actions and decisions. Knowledge statement and the person interpreting it must share artifacts also vary in their degree of articulation; some common frame of reference to understand when simple knowledge artifacts can be explicit, implicit or heavy coats are worn and who locks up classrooms. tacit. Most artifacts, however, are not simple but complex, and contain a combination of explicit, The underlying knowledge embedded in processes can implicit and tacit also be considered as an implicit artifact. For example, a manual detailing the safe way to handle corrosive 2.2.1 Explicit Knowledge Artifacts. materials might include a statement such as “This material should not be used on polished or anodized These are knowledge artifacts that have been aluminum services. If swallowed, immediately rinse articulated in such a way that they can be directly and mouth and drink a glass of milk or water. Do not completely transferred from one person to another. induce vomiting.” The implicit knowledge contained This normally means that they have been codified so it within these warnings, combined with what the reader is possible to touch, see, hear, feel and manipulate might recall from high school chemistry, tells the them (e.g. books, reports, data files, newsreels, audio reader that the material is likely to be very caustic. cassettes and other physical forms). Implicit knowledge artifacts can also be found in 2.2.2 Implicit Knowledge Artifacts. process-specific software. In developing the software, These are knowledge artifacts whose meaning is not the designers had to conceptualize the processes that explicitly captured, but can be inferred; in effect, the the software would be supporting. That knowledge codification process is incomplete. Explicit artifacts will show in the way the software is intended to be can be interpreted totally on their content. Interpreters used and in the range of behaviors it directly supports. of implicit artifacts must rely on previously retained Even if not explicitly apparent, these implicit knowledge. knowledge artifacts will effectively constrain users’ actions. This is often referred to as implicit policy For example, the knowledge that a given phrase is a making by technologists [Con95]. book title tends to be implicit. Rarely is there anything that specifically tells someone that they are reading a 2.2.3 Tacit Knowledge Artifacts. book title, as might be the case in an SGML or XML These may be the most insidious and powerful of the system when tags explicitly communicate three. Michael Polanyi referred to tacit knowledge as semantic meaning. In most cases, the reader infers the “knowing more than we can say” [Pol66]. Simply stated, tacit artifacts are those that defy expression and 2 1 In many circles, it is still common to refer to the codification. This is not to say that tacit knowledge artifacts are without influence. The most vivid level of abstraction and the potential role of example is the old saw about what would happen to knowledge artifacts by differentiating among data, information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom. While such distinctions may still prove helpful in some cases, problems in definition and interpretation 2 The problem of tacit knowledge, its acquisition and often arise from any attempt to maintain rigid lines of epistemic status has been the focus of considerable demarcation. These problems can be avoided through philosophical investigation by such people as Ludwig the use of the collective term artifact without any Wittgenstein, Edmund Husserl, Hilary Putnam and, significant loss in the effectiveness or validity of the most significantly, Michael Polanyi. framework. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-3 the centipede if she were to stop and think about how surface of a film could act as an automated agent, to walk. supporting knowledge creation and capture. It is important to note that, for the most part, artifacts 2.3.3 Organizational Agents. are passive. While they can change (or, more These agents exist in situations in which knowledge accurately, be changed), they can’t act. Has anybody retention and transfer cannot be fully attributed to ever seen a financial report make a decision or a book individuals or specific automated agents. In these on aerodynamics build an airplane? cases, the organization itself serves as an agent in the retention and dissemination of knowledge. As with 2.3 Agents tacit knowledge artifacts, current tools and concepts Knowledge artifacts do not perform actions and make do not account very well for the roles of organizational decisions. Actions and decisions are undertaken by agents in knowledge flows. agents: people, organizations, or in some cases, technology. Agents carry out all the actions and Organizational value systems provide strong evidence exhibit all the behaviors within a knowledge flow. for the existence of organizational agents. Much has been written about the ability of organizations and Often, analysts attempt to apply the same behavioral communities to establish value systems that outlive the models to all agents in a system. More appropriately, involvement of specific individuals and the power that agents can be placed in three categories: these value systems have to influence the behavior of individuals and groups [Kro95}[Kuh96]. The • Individual agents principles and practices that make up these value • Automated agents systems are almost never codified. • Organizational agents. In fact, when individuals attempt to describe the 2.3.1 Individual Agents. organization’s value system, the descriptions are usually incomplete, reflecting either an interpretation These agents sit at the center of almost every of the organization’s values or a blending of knowledge flow. For most analysts, the individual organizational and individual values. The common (human) serves as the prototypical active force for use of the terms unwritten rules and organizational affecting change. In this paper, the term individual is culture is a reflection of the difficulties involved. The used in the collective sense and is not meant to imply terms acknowledge that organizations are repositories that every specific individual is capable of the full of tacit knowledge. range of behaviors attributed to this class of agent. Individual, organizational and automated agents have Individual agents are capable of working with different behavioral models. Unlike computerized knowledge and knowledge artifacts in all degrees of agents, for example, most individuals don’t perform a abstract articulation. They are limited, however, in given task exactly the same the way every time. If their ability to deal with artifacts that are codified in human-based knowledge transfer processes are ways that fall outside the range of human perception designed to work as software processes do and the (radio waves, for example). The individual agent is the designers fail to leave sufficient room for the factor of only agent capable of performing all aspects of human variability, the system is unlikely to perform as knowledge development, retention, transfer and intended. utilization without the need for intervention by either of the other two agents. Individual and automated agents also differ in their ability to handle implicit knowledge artifacts. For 2.3.2 Automated Agents. example, the ability of individuals to infer meaning of These agents can include any human construct that is book titles usually allows them to accept a wide variety capable of retaining, transferring or transforming of formats and styles and even recognize titles inside knowledge artifacts. They are not exclusively streams of text (for example, The Bible). Anyone who computerized processes, as is often assumed in has built filters to convert documents knows that discussions of knowledge management. A automated agents are not skilled at supplying context. conventional camera that encodes a representation of the visual world through chemical changes to the Agents also differ in the how well they use tacit knowledge. Individual and organizational agents can B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-4 handle tacit knowledge, but because automated agents The framework is easy to use when represented as a can only deal with codified artifacts, and tacit table (for example, Table 1, below). In this form it knowledge by definition defies codification, automated allows a given tool to be described in terms of its agents seem destined to be unable to follow suit.3 interactions with the various elements of knowledge flows and their associated subtypes. 2.3.4 Behavioral Differences Among Agent Types This is not the only way the framework can be Individual, organizational, and automated agents have displayed. The framework is a general-purpose tool different behavioral models. Unlike computerized that can be applied to a variety of problems and agents, for example, most individuals don't perform a solutions and adapted to individual work styles. given task exactly the same the way every time. If human-based knowledge transfer processes are For example, you could use the table as a simple guide designed to work like software processes do and the or checklist to make sure that you have examined a designers fail to leave sufficient room for the factor of tool or situation from all of the suggested aspects. You human variability, the system is unlikely to perform as might use it to record primary and secondary intended. characteristics when comparing similar tools. Or, you Closely tied to the factor of human variability, could expand the cells to contain short statements that individual and automated agents also differ in their reflect what you know about the interaction of the tool ability to handle implicit knowledge artifacts. Going with the target element. All of these are valid back to the example of book titles, the ability of approaches and could be used separately or in individuals to infer meaning usually allows them to combination. This flexibility is intentional; it can be accept a wide variety of formats and styles and even traced back to the framework’s theoretical recognize book titles inside of streams of text (for foundations. example, “The Bible”). Ask anyone who has built filters to convert documents and has had to deal with The framework’s theoretical roots focus on the role of issues of ambiguous markup and formatting errors and knowledge in complex systems and fundamental they will tell you that automated agents are not as knowledge interactions. This focus provides a solid skilled at supplying missing contexts to understand foundation that can be built upon, applied and adapted what the individuals writing the document were tying to different contexts. to imply. Agents also differ in the way that they make use of So, while this framework can be used to do highly tacit knowledge. Traditionally, the ability to use tacit formalized analysis, it also works for simpler, back-of- knowledge is attributed to individual and the-envelope analysis, or even to sort out a couple of organizational agents. Because automated agents can facts. It works for engineers and psychologists and can only deal with codified artifacts, and tacit knowledge be used to discuss and describe information policies in neutral language that is neither business-centric nor by definition defies codification, automated agents technology-centric. seem destined to be left out in the cold4. The important thing is to keep it simple. By using the 3 The Characterization Framework and framework, you will learn more about your problem How to Use It and make explicit other things you had known implicitly or even tacitly. As new facts become The characterization framework is the application of apparent, the tendency might be to start drilling the concepts described above to activities such as those deeper and deeper into a facet of the problem. It will associated with tool selection, development and not take long to realize that the deeper you go, the deployment. more interrelated that particular facet becomes with the other areas of the framework. Before you know it, the problem will have become very complex. 3 More on the ways in which tacit knowledge can be addressed by knowledge management efforts can be To avoid this trap, take a high-level look at the problem or situation from all the vantage points found in The Siamese Twins: Documents and offered by the framework. This way you develop a Knowledge [New97]. balanced view of the situation and are in a better position to understand the interrelationships that occur 4 More on the ways in which tacit knowledge can be as you extend your analysis. addressed by knowledge management efforts can be found in [New97]. It is also important to note that the effective use of the framework is not dependent on selecting just the right B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-5 Tool Activity Activity Agent Artifact Focus Phase Level Type Type Practice Method Technology Creation Retention Transfer Utilization High-level Process Mid-level Process Decision or Action Individual Automated Organizational Explicit Implicit Tacit Agent Artifact Process Name Table 1. Sample Rendering of the Framework starting point. Whether you choose to start with an The framework was designed primarily to support tool examination of the agent, the artifact, the activity classification, hence the term classification phase or the activity level, the interrelated nature of framework. It helps individuals identify and these elements will end up leading you into the rest. differentiate among the roles different tools can play in a knowledge management system. One of the When using the framework in a group setting, or easiest ways to evaluate a tool is to describe its when two people are using it to examine the same situation, it is important to keep in mind that the characteristics in terms of its interactions with each of framework cannot make everyone see a given problem the element subtypes of the framework. in exactly the same way. If different people or groups use this framework to look at a single event, odds are, Once tools have been characterized in this fashion, they will come up with different results. That does not analysts are in a better position to do the following: mean the framework is flawed. What it means is that the different observers have applied their own ƒ Relate the various ways that methods, practices experience and personal knowledge5 to the and technologies can impact the flow of interpretation. knowledge within an organization ƒ Identify if the primary role of a given tool is to The approach of using a single record for all of the manipulate artifacts, influence agent behavior or elements associated with a specific tool is intended to focus attention on high-level analyses. This is just one establish behavioral patterns application of the framework. If you need to perform ƒ Distinguish between the types of agents whose more detailed analyses, other application approaches behaviors will be most influenced by a given tool are possible. For example, you might want to construct ƒ Distinguish the level of organizational behavior smaller matrices that contrast individual elements, the tool will most likely affect. such as activity phase and activity level and repeat the analysis at each intersection point. This could help 3.1.1 Using the Framework to Identify Knowledge clarify the location of critical interactions to better Flow Elements identify targets of opportunity for improving knowledge flows and associated agent performance. Underlying the application of the framework in tool classification is the ability to use the framework to 3.1 Using the Framework to Classify Knowledge identify and classify the individual elements of Management Tools knowledge flows and their supporting knowledge management systems (i.e. agents, artifacts and 5 Prior personal knowledge can be explicit, implicit, behaviors). In effect, the framework provides a way to subdivide knowledge flows into more manageable or tacit, or a combination of all three. More on the components. nature of prior retained knowledge can be found in It is one thing to subdivide, but it is another to [New97] subdivide and maintain meaning. Mapping knowledge B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-6 flow elements to agents, artifacts and behaviors raises the level of abstraction and, in effect, simplifies the The framework has been used to successfully improve elements. At the same time, care must be taken not to the reliability of collaborative decision-making oversimplify and damage usability. The further processes and the quality of resulting decisions. It has subtyping of agents, artifacts and behaviors (for helped to illuminate the relationships among new example, by activity phase and level) maintains information, known facts, prior leanings and value enough richness and context for the framework to be systems. This has allowed decision making and usable. For most purposes, this level of subtyping governance patterns to be identified and translated maintains a healthy balance between simplicity and into both general strategies for improvement and sophistication. specific designs for decision-making processes and formal governing bodies. 3.1.2 Using the Framework to Analyze Knowledge Flows and Identify Gaps Within a number of projects, the framework has been Because the framework illuminates the nature of the used to map end-user behaviors to specific metadata relationships among knowledge flow elements, it requirements and document designs. The framework allows analysts to take the myriad of data points has proved useful precisely because it focuses attention associated with complex knowledge flows and put on the interactions of multiple agents and processes. them into a structure in which the relationships and This helps individuals identify and differentiate the dependencies become far more apparent (or even metadata and other knowledge artifacts most explicit). This structuring process, in turn, helps appropriate and valuable to each of the ever-increasing illuminate both patterns and the gaps that result from number of agents and processes that seek to interact missing or unarticulated elements. with such artifacts. Often, gaps in understanding drive the phenomenon of 3.2.2 Selection of Knowledge Management overloading, when the distinctions among artifacts, Products. agents and behaviors are blurred and the nature of the Like the document management market that preceded relationships becomes confused. With the growth of it, the market for knowledge management tools and advanced data standards, such as dynamic HTML, technologies is a confusing one. When used to support people seem far more likely to confuse artifacts and market analysis, the framework helps to articulate the behavior. When faced with an HTML tag, for organizational context in which the tool will be used example, it is not uncommon for people to say that the and therefore illuminates previously unrecognized document blinks, when in reality the interactions, gaps. These understandings can then be leveraged in dependencies and transformations are far more the form of more complete and formal specifications to complex. The document (artifact) is a repository for aid in the selection of tools that best fit the instructions (artifact) that conform to an agreed upon organization as a whole. Finally, the framework helps specification or protocol (artifact). It is actually a to illustrate that the true value of a tool results browser (agent) that is responsible for making the text ultimately from the decisions that are made about how blink (behavior). to deploy it in the context of specific knowledge flows. 3.2 Application Areas The framework also helps to explain the subtle but noticeable shift away from traditional file management 3.2.1 Internal Development of Knowledge systems to more interactive and highly granular Management Solutions. component management systems that support The framework can be used in the following ways to personalization and dynamic content. With increasing support internal development efforts: demand to support a broader range of context-specific behaviors, information management systems are being y Mapping specific tools and technologies asked to provide ever more sophisticated metadata and according to their potential roles in relationship management services. Such emerging knowledge flows metadata management systems are well suited to y Identifying functional gaps providing just the right content to the right person at y Determining integration points the right time and customizing artifacts to better y Validating the scope of development efforts enable that person’s actions and decisions. that seek to extend base technologies with application-specific functionality. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-7 3.2.3 Marketing of Knowledge Management Likewise, e-mail does not have much to do with Products. knowledge utilization. The real focus of e-mail, as with most office automation tools, is knowledge The framework can benefit companies contemplating transfer and, depending on how you use it (for new offerings, as well as those actively engaged in the example, whether you keep all of your old messages), marketplace. Because knowledge management serves possibly retention. A few tools, such as modeling and as an integrating discipline for many existing decision support tools, focus on creation and/or practices, organizations have had a hard time utilization, but most of the software applications distinguishing just where both existing and new tools associated with “management” (for example, fit into the picture. One of the more common information management, document management and complaints from customers is that vendors are just re- image management) tend to focus on retention, labeling existing products as knowledge management transfer and their associated transformations. tools with little or no change in the underlying functionality. Activity Level — On What Does E-mail Tend to Have the Most Impact? For vendors in the knowledge management market, the framework offers a well-grounded way to E-mail has an impact on three activity levels: differentiate products and services. The examples that follow show that existing technologies, such as e-mail, y On low-level decisions and actions because it and methods, such as facilitation, have meaningful is one of the ways (sometimes a primary way) roles in supporting knowledge flows and are valid that people engage in one-on-one pieces of a more comprehensive knowledge communication with others, decide priorities, management system. This framework gives the vendor allocate tasks and exchange the small bits of a way to describe how their product or service fits information that drive individual actions within the broader context of the knowledge y On mid-level activities because it is not management solution space. As well, it can help uncommon to see business processes at identify strategic opportunities for product evolution various project and program levels designed and increased customer value. around specific e-mail capabilities and/or specific protocols established for the use of e- 3.3 Examples mail within the organization y On high-level business processes because of Below are two examples of how you can apply the its well-documented impact on organizational framework to assess how two tools that may not culture, openness, knowledge sharing and normally be associated with knowledge management structure. For most organizations, the impact could help with knowledge management activities: e- of e-mail on strategic processes is fairly low. mail and a facilitation method called AtStake. For businesses with virtual organizations or Internet-based sales and marketing 3.3.1 E-mail components, however, e-mail is likely to be a critical enabler of core competency. You are looking to improve communications and are exploring e-mail systems. The first question is Agent Type — What Types of Agents Interact with E- whether e-mail is a practice, method or technology. mail and How? And there’s no doubt: we are definitely talking about a technology. E-mail tools are automated agents. The primary interfaces tend to be with individuals and not Activity Phase — Which Activity Areas Does E-mail organizations, keeping in mind that organizations Support? cannot type or read. However, e-mail tools can and often do interface with such automated agents as data E-mail doesn’t generally contribute to knowledge mining, security, the firewall and a variety of creation. It does not matter what kind of editor you are attachment-specific tools. using to draft a message because the primary purpose of the tool is not to help you synthesize new knowledge. Still, you might decide to compare tools in terms of their knowledge capture capabilities. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-8 Artifact Type — How Does E-mail Interact with Each Activity Phase — Which Activity Areas Does AtStake Type of Artifact? Support? E-mail systems inherently accept and reject certain AtStake’s most significant contribution to knowledge forms of codification and rendering. Some of these management is knowledge creation. AtStake sessions codifications represent communication protocols that typically result in the creation of a new, shared specify the way that e-mail messages are to be encoded understanding among the participants. This shared and packaged. An e-mail tool, for example, is not understanding, in turn, functions as a context for expected to render music. Likewise, e-mail cannot aligning individual behaviors. Knowledge capture is process machine code. In general, e-mail tools only usually done with flip charts, personal notes and actively interact with textual material and the most memories. complex behaviors are usually associated with a limited set of textual representations. In terms of retention, there does not have to be a strong emphasis on generation and retention of Focus — Is E-mail Optimized for Interactions with explicit artifacts. In many cases, some form of follow- Agents, Artifacts or Processes? up documentation is produced. However, often the only form of retention is the tacit knowledge of the Although there is typically quite a bit of interaction participants. The participating organizational agents with individual and automated agents, e-mail systems often retain as tacit artifacts the shared values that are do not direct or influence agent behavior. Instead, synthesized. most of their functions are associated with the manipulation of e-mail artifacts. A typical AtStake session involves considerable knowledge transfer among the participants. The By now your analysis has gone full circle. It started facilitation model is designed to amplify and focus with the type of tool and ended by looking at the such transfer activities through a series of small and impact of the tool on artifacts. You could, of course, large group exercises. Along the same lines, the most start anywhere. By the time you have completed a row apparent form of knowledge utilization occurs in real in the table, the tool has been examined from the time within the facilitation process. The new shared standpoint of process, agents and artifacts. Table 2 understanding also drives knowledge utilization as shows this analysis in a fully populated rendering of individual behaviors align while consensus is being the framework. reached. 3.3.2 AtStake Activity Level — On What Does AtStake Tend to Have The framework can also be used to characterize the Most Impact? methods. In this example, a stakeholder-focused AtStake is often used to provide direction to high-level strategic planning process called AtStake is evaluated business processes and contributes to the development using the characterization framework. of consensus among multiple organizations (and even multiple governments). Many organizations in the As with e-mail, there are many methods (including governmental, quasi-governmental and private sectors AtStake) that are not normally considered to be have used it to define high-level processes and knowledge management tools. However, the activities organizational structures. that comprise an AtStake session, the facilitation approaches that it is based on, and the artifacts that It has also proved to be quite useful for integrating are produced can, be characterized from a KM stakeholders’ knowledge requirements into the design perspective. of mid-level business processes, activities and projects. In this context, AtStake can be used very effectively to AtStake is considered a method, because it is based on define policy parameters, performance objectives and a series of repeatable steps that produce predictable specific action plans. results. Although it is a fairly general tool that can be used in a variety of ways (including conflict resolution The AtStake process, especially its facilitation model, and the structuring of negotiations) it is not is weakest at the level of individual decision and sophisticated enough or used by enough people to be actions. The underlying concepts can be and are used considered a practice. Also, it does not rely on enough to enable decisions and actions, but the process as a automation to be considered a technology. whole is not designed for this. B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-9 Agent Type — What Types of Agents Interact with Artifact Type — How Does AtStake Interact with Each AtStake and How? Type of Artifact? Individual agents are the participants that create, The most important artifacts associated with the retain, transfer and act upon the knowledge flows process are not explicit. Participants rarely bring associated with an AtStake session. No automated explicit artifacts into the sessions. Flip charts and final agents of any consequence are involved with the reports are explicit, but they are of secondary process; standard office automation software can be importance to the process. used in preparation and documentation, but it is not required. While the conversations are explicit, much of their value is derived from the context that is established. Organizational agents are certainly involved because Stated another way, the facilitation process frames the primary function of AtStake is to help groups to explicit speech in a way that amplifies its value by think collaboratively and produce a tangible product, using it as a vehicle for transferring implicit and tacit if needed. Also, the impact of an AtStake session is knowledge. usually felt most directly at the organizational level. One of the primary outcomes is a creation of a shared Implicit knowledge is also captured by the facilitator reality that mobilizes and provides focus to an and can be used to interpret the group’s flip charts and organization’s diverse (and sometimes autonomous) prepare the final report. The explicit artifacts are used components. to trigger implicit knowledge about their context and both are re-synthesized in the final report. The role of the organizational agent is so important to an AtStake session that special consideration should Manipulation of tacit artifacts is the primary focus of be given to including individuals whose concerns fall an AtStake session. The participants bring tacit clearly outside the scope of the targeted organizational knowledge to the table. It is then made explicit agent(s). These external stakeholders (e.g. customers, through conversations that are prioritized and re- clients, information and technology suppliers, codified into a written record. Once it has been regulators, auditors, approval bodies and financiers) transferred through a variety of written and spoken must be active participants to ensure that they come to forms, it is internalized as new set of tacit artifacts consensus at a point that not only suits them, but is whose content is the new shared value set. also consistent with the broader community of interests that will ultimately determine the success or Focus — Is AtStake Optimized for Interactions with failure of the enterprise. Agents, Artifacts or Processes? AtStake sessions focus on agents, specifically influencing the behaviors of individual and organizational agents. Secondarily, AtStake produces a set of tacit artifacts (the shared value set). Tool Activity Activity Agent Artifact Focus Phase Level Type Type Practice Method Technology Creation Retention Transfer Utilization High-level Process Mid-level Process Decision or Action Individual Automated Organizational Explicit Implicit Tacit Agent Artifact Process Name E-mail X X X X X X X X X AtStake X X X X X X X X Table 2: A Sample Populated Framework B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-10 4.0 Conclusion and cultural problems that are common to such initiatives. Selecting knowledge management technologies is often a daunting and risky task. Without an independent frame of reference, attempts to compare References knowledge management technologies can be very confusing and fail to drive needed decisions. By [Con95] Conrad, K. W. (1995) SGML, HyTime, and providing a means to differentiate technologies Organic Information Management Models, according to their impacts on agents, artifacts and Second International Conference on the behaviors, the characterization framework described Application of HyTime, August 1995 in this paper provides just the kind of neutral reference (http://www.SagebrushGroup.com/organic.htm). point organizations often need. [Kro95] Krogh, G.V. and J.Roos (1995), The framework also adds value to supporting Organizational Epistomology. New York, St. analytical, design, development and deployment Martin's Press. activities by guiding the analysis of knowledge flows and construction of a usefully comprehensive picture. [Kuh96] Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of The framework provides a mechanism for developing Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The a balanced, high-level view that can be used to set the University of Chicago Press. stage for deeper analysis, identifying the compelling and critical issues that warrant more careful [New97] Newman, B. D. (1997). The Siamese Twins: examination. Once the picture is complete, the Documents and Knowledge. West Richland, framework can be used to identify the specific needs WA, The Knowledge Management Forum. that can be met with off-the-shelf technology, localized customizations or change-management [Pol66] Polanyi, M. (1996), The Tacit Dimension, programs. Gloucester, MA., Doubleday (Reprint 1983). By using the same framework to relate technologies, Suggested Reading methods and practices back to targeted knowledge Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge Assets: Securing flows and their associated behavioral goals, it becomes Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy. easier to balance technical and non-technical New York, Oxford University Press. approaches. This allows project teams to take a more rational, whole systems approach to development and Fahey, L. and L. Prusak (1998). The Eleven Deadliest deployment, improving their ability to develop tools Sins of Knowledge Management, California and approaches that target and resolve root problems Management Review 40(3): 265-276. and not just symptoms, improve organizational performance and lower overall life cycle risks. Jensen, M. C. (1998). Foundations of Organizational Strategy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Acknowledgements University Press. Brian (Bo) Newman has more than 20 years’ Krogh, G. V. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation, experience offering services in the areas of knowledge California Management Review 40(3): 133-153. management and project management. As the founder, host and moderator of the internationally recognized Lamberts, K. and D. Shanks (1997). Knowledge, Knowledge Management Forum, Mr. Newman has Concepts, and Categories. Cambridge, Massachusetts, long worked to establish improved models for The MIT Press. understanding the ways knowledge is developed, stored, transferred and used within organizations. Leonard, D. and S. Sensiper (1998). The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation, California Kurt Conrad is one of the original members of the Management Review 40(3): 112-132. Knowledge Management Forum. As a project architect of enterprise-wide document production systems, he Moss, E. (1995). The Grammar of Consciousness: An blends knowledge management methodologies with Exploration of Tacit Knowing. New York, St. Martin's SGML and XML technologies to integrate the needs Press. of multiple stakeholders, resolving the organizational B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-11